Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216695 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#89237 May 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
In the first place, radiometric carbon dating is invalid for dates beyond about 3,500 years, because no calibration curves have been calculated.
Second, the mutation resulting in lactose digestion is believed to have occured 52,000 years ago.
Third, the existence of lactose intolerance in an ancient mummy provides no evidence that everyoone during that time period was lactose intolerant.
When you want to show your stupidity, you like to kick all the jams don't you. Radiocarbon dating can date materials up to 50,000 years old. The mutation that allows for lactose digestion by adults of certain populations occurred sometime in the last 10,000 years. I have seen one estimate that placed it at 3-5000 years ago, but I could be remembering wrong. It turns out that lactose digestion by populations in Africa is the result of a different and independent mutation than that found in Europeans. Finally something you are right about. Just because one individual shows lactose intolerance does not mean they all did, but even that small a sample does provide us with a window to peer into the genetics of that population and it is another piece of evidence that fits right in the story of the lactose digestion mutation.

You keep making the half-assed, inane claims and we keep shooting them down with real evidence. I think when you say you like science, what you are really saying is you like pretty plants and animals. But you know nothing beyond the aesthetics.

Here is the reference to the paper on the origin of lactose digestion in Africa for those actually interested in science.

Tishkoff, Sarah A., Floyd A Reed, Alessia Ranciaro, et. al. 2007. Convergent adaptation of human lactase persistence in Africa and Europe. Nature Genetics. 39(1): 31-40.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#89238 May 16, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>When you want to show your stupidity, you like to kick all the jams don't you. Radiocarbon dating can date materials up to 50,000 years old. The mutation that allows for lactose digestion by adults of certain populations occurred sometime in the last 10,000 years. I have seen one estimate that placed it at 3-5000 years ago, but I could be remembering wrong. It turns out that lactose digestion by populations in Africa is the result of a different and independent mutation than that found in Europeans. Finally something you are right about. Just because one individual shows lactose intolerance does not mean they all did, but even that small a sample does provide us with a window to peer into the genetics of that population and it is another piece of evidence that fits right in the story of the lactose digestion mutation.
You keep making the half-assed, inane claims and we keep shooting them down with real evidence. I think when you say you like science, what you are really saying is you like pretty plants and animals. But you know nothing beyond the aesthetics.
Here is the reference to the paper on the origin of lactose digestion in Africa for those actually interested in science.
Tishkoff, Sarah A., Floyd A Reed, Alessia Ranciaro, et. al. 2007. Convergent adaptation of human lactase persistence in Africa and Europe. Nature Genetics. 39(1): 31-40.
You simply claim that radiometric C-14 dating is valid for 50,000 years. There is no science behind that claim.
You still have dodged the question.
How has anyone documented that a MUTATION created the ability to digest lactose? You merely declare it by parroting dogma.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#89239 May 16, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You know, if I was as stupid as you, I'd never show my face in public for fear of being recognized. You have already been informed that carbon dating is not the only dating method utilized, and in ice samples, you don't even use carbon dating.
KK, I actually did check up on the dating method used on Ötzi, and they DID use C14 dating techniques on his mummy.

“Jon Snow”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#89240 May 16, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
KK, I actually did check up on the dating method used on Ötzi, and they DID use C14 dating techniques on his mummy.

He was smoking...again. LOL

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#89241 May 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You simply claim that radiometric C-14 dating is valid for 50,000 years. There is no science behind that claim.
Damn, you're ignorant.

Here, check out **THIS** guy:

Dr. Wiens received a bachelor's degree in Physics from Wheaton College and a PhD from the University of Minnesota, doing research on meteorites and moon rocks. Dr. Wiens became a Christian at a young age, and has been a member of Mennonite Brethren, General Conference Baptist, and Conservative Congregational, and Vineyard denominations. He does not see a conflict between science in its ideal form (the study of God's handiwork) and the Bible, or between miracles on the one hand, and an old Earth on the other.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html

Per Dr. Wiens: "Since the half-life of carbon-14 is less than 6,000 years, it can only be used for dating material less than about 45,000 years old."
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You still have dodged the question.
How has anyone documented that a MUTATION created the ability to digest lactose? You merely declare it by parroting dogma.
Is the Mayo Clinic good enough for you?

(a surprise awaits at the end of the paragraph)

There are three types of lactose intolerance.

1. Normal result of aging for some people (primary lactose intolerance)
Normally, your body produces large amounts of lactase at birth and during early childhood, when milk is the primary source of nutrition. <<truncated>>

2. Result of illness or injury (secondary lactose intolerance)
This form of lactose intolerance occurs when your small intestine decreases lactase production after an illness, surgery or injury to your small intestine. <<truncated>>

3. Condition you're born with (congenital lactose intolerance)
It's possible, but rare, for babies to be born with lactose intolerance caused by a complete absence of lactase activity. This disorder is passed from generation to generation in a pattern of inheritance called autosomal recessive. This means that both the mother and the father must pass on the defective form of the gene for a child to be affected. Infants with congenital lactose intolerance are intolerant of the lactose in their mothers' breast milk and have diarrhea from birth. These babies require lactose-free infant formulas. Premature infants may also have lactose intolerance because of an insufficient lactase level. In babies who are otherwise healthy, this doesn't lead to malnutrition.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/lactose-into...

To be honest, I was under the impression that lactose intolerance was ONLY caused by genetic mutation, so I guess I have you to thank for my education. You can now thank ME for YOUR edcuation.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#89242 May 16, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Some creatures who mate for life don't live long after their mate dies, why is that?
They heard you were going to be talking about them and couldn't go on with that knowledge.

What species would you offer as an example?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#89243 May 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
In the first place, radiometric carbon dating is invalid for dates beyond about 3,500 years, because no calibration curves have been calculated.
Second, the mutation resulting in lactose digestion is believed to have occured 52,000 years ago.
Third, the existence of lactose intolerance in an ancient mummy provides no evidence that everyoone during that time period was lactose intolerant.
No, all that means is that at worst the dates for times beyond 3,500 years are not as accurate as those from times before 3,500 years ago.. There is no reason to propose a massive change in the amount of C14 produced in the upper atmosphere.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#89244 May 16, 2013
Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>Now please tell me again the number of years you served and to what rank you acquired,
7 billion, rank: Time Lord!

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#89245 May 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You simply claim that radiometric C-14 dating is valid for 50,000 years. There is no science behind that claim.
You still have dodged the question.
How has anyone documented that a MUTATION created the ability to digest lactose? You merely declare it by parroting dogma.
You simply claim that radiometric carbon dating is only good for a few thousand years. There is definitely no science behind that.
I haven't dodged anything and you are once again showing your dishonesty. Really, how are you going to be taken seriously at all when you throw away your ethics and credibility.
Would look up the word dogma for God's sake and read the definition. Do you need your hand held and walked to the truth. Read the article I sited. It will show you how.

Quick and dirty. If you want to know what a gene does, you knock it. You do understand that genes do something don't you? I ask because I already wonder what you know of science, biology and the like. Genes express themselves as traits. Traits are characters like height, weight, intelligence, number of legs, hair color, skin texture, etc., etc., etc. If you find a trait in a particular population that isn't in other populations, then maybe there is a new gene there too. What do you think sport? We can find those genes. Amazing isn't it. Where did this gene come from? Looking at the gene will tell you something about that. Stay with me now, I know this technical stuff really mires you down. Now read the paper and any others you find. They will tell you the rest. I am assuming you can read based on this forum, but I have doubts about the comprehension so take it slow.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#89246 May 16, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
...and you feel this is a relevation of some sort?
Have you not been reading the reports of the impact of mankind on Climate Change?
Okay, what, have the fundies taken over you by remote control or something??

http://funnyasduck.net/wp-content/uploads/201...

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#89247 May 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, all that means is that at worst the dates for times beyond 3,500 years are not as accurate as those from times before 3,500 years ago.. There is no reason to propose a massive change in the amount of C14 produced in the upper atmosphere.
So SD, I was under the impression from reading that the limit of C14 dating was with things 50,000 years of age or younger. Is this wrong or is it as you say, just decreasing the accuracy?
HTS

Mandan, ND

#89248 May 16, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn, you're ignorant.
Here, check out **THIS** guy:
Dr. Wiens received a bachelor's degree in Physics from Wheaton College and a PhD from the University of Minnesota, doing research on meteorites and moon rocks. Dr. Wiens became a Christian at a young age, and has been a member of Mennonite Brethren, General Conference Baptist, and Conservative Congregational, and Vineyard denominations. He does not see a conflict between science in its ideal form (the study of God's handiwork) and the Bible, or between miracles on the one hand, and an old Earth on the other.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html
Per Dr. Wiens: "Since the half-life of carbon-14 is less than 6,000 years, it can only be used for dating material less than about 45,000 years old."
<quoted text>
Is the Mayo Clinic good enough for you?
(a surprise awaits at the end of the paragraph)
There are three types of lactose intolerance.
1. Normal result of aging for some people (primary lactose intolerance)
Normally, your body produces large amounts of lactase at birth and during early childhood, when milk is the primary source of nutrition. <<truncated>>
2. Result of illness or injury (secondary lactose intolerance)
This form of lactose intolerance occurs when your small intestine decreases lactase production after an illness, surgery or injury to your small intestine. <<truncated>>
3. Condition you're born with (congenital lactose intolerance)
It's possible, but rare, for babies to be born with lactose intolerance caused by a complete absence of lactase activity. This disorder is passed from generation to generation in a pattern of inheritance called autosomal recessive. This means that both the mother and the father must pass on the defective form of the gene for a child to be affected. Infants with congenital lactose intolerance are intolerant of the lactose in their mothers' breast milk and have diarrhea from birth. These babies require lactose-free infant formulas. Premature infants may also have lactose intolerance because of an insufficient lactase level. In babies who are otherwise healthy, this doesn't lead to malnutrition.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/lactose-into...
To be honest, I was under the impression that lactose intolerance was ONLY caused by genetic mutation, so I guess I have you to thank for my education. You can now thank ME for YOUR edcuation.
Quoting one PhD is not "scientific evidence". Radiometric C-14 dating is inaccurate for 45,000 years for four main reasons...
1. no calibration curve can be calculated, because no artifact proven by historical data exists that is 45,000 years old.
2. Given the short half life of C-14, the amount of C-14 in a 45,000 year old sample would be very scant. Any slight miscalculation would result in a potentially big swing in the calculation.
3. It is impossible to know the level of C-14 in the atmosphere 45,000 years ago. What basis do you claim for assuming that the level has remained unchanged for 45,000 years?
4. It cannot be assumed that no leaching of C-14 took place over the entire period of time.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#89249 May 16, 2013
Jenji wrote:
First of all let me say that creationism does not run counter to natural selection. However, evolution DOES run counter to biological science! Any time you have a naturally occurring change in a genetic structure, it's called a 'mutation' and to this day mutations are never a positive thing. They result in D formations, diseases, and things like that.
They also result in AIDS resistance, malaria resistance, citrate metabolism, cecal valves...

Fact is that ALL of us are born with around 125 to 175 mutations that our parents do NOT have. And in general most of us don't suffer any problems.

Creationists on the other hand prefer to ignore reality and argue against a caricature of evolution instead of dealing with the real thing.

So quite simply you are wrong.
Jenji wrote:
And besides that, when I stand on a mountaintop at sunset, just as God created me and watching the world around me shift from day to night as the place where I'm standing passes through the terminator line on the planet's surface, I see nothing but evidence of creation.
Actually all you see is evidence of the world around you shift from day to night as the place where I'm standing passes through the terminator line on the planet's surface.

That doesn't mean God didn't do it. But it doesn't mean it did either.
Jenji wrote:
Sorry, but I don't see things that used to be pond scum that somehow decided to become trees and the other millions of life forms before me!
Despite what you are capable of seeing, the fact is that life began with rather simple organisms and gradually changed from there. This is what the fossil record and our DNA structure indicates.

If you like you can believe that that's how God did it.

Or you can believe God is a liar. It's up to you.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#89250 May 16, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You simply claim that radiometric carbon dating is only good for a few thousand years. There is definitely no science behind that.
There is no science behind a methodology that cannot prove accuracy through calibration curves with known standards.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#89251 May 16, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's 45 seperate,individual scientific papers that address the mutation that determine lactose (in)tolerance:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
So in other words, YES.

Cue HTS goalpost movement. Sort of akin to rapid bowel movement.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#89252 May 16, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Kong, I see you having some difficulty with this. Let me summarize the available information...
There are systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns.
I hope this helps.
Still don't care Mikey...

Wait. Now you're confusing me.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#89253 May 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
In the first place, radiometric carbon dating is invalid for dates beyond about 3,500 years, because no calibration curves have been calculated.
Second, the mutation resulting in lactose digestion is believed to have occured 52,000 years ago.
Third, the existence of lactose intolerance in an ancient mummy provides no evidence that everyoone during that time period was lactose intolerant.
First, carbon dating works for a minimum of 50,000 years.

Second, belief is redundant when one has evidence.

Third, HOW do YOU know??? Where you THERE?!?

Duh.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#89254 May 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What methology was used to date the mummy, and what is the proof that it is accurate and reproducible?
We put it in a dress, send it to your door, then do it again the next day. We record that both times you got lucky.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#89255 May 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice dodge, Dan.
You didn't explain how anyone has documented that the capacity to digest lactose is the result of a mutation. All you've presented is raw speculation.
"Dodge" is your first, second, third, middle, fifth, sixth and last names.

Level 2

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#89256 May 16, 2013
PROFESSOR X wrote:
Atheistic Scientists were Humiliated As Their Junk DNA Evolution Paradigm recently Collapsed
Anti-theistic scientists, Ken Miller, Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents made failed observations about DNA, such that their Darwinian evolution paradigm has collapsed. Not that long ago, junk DNA was being defended as an important element of the Darwinian evolution paradigm ... The question now seems to be whether Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents will continue to defend junk DNA, whatever they call it?- Rob Crowther,PhD
Evolutionary Biologist Richard Sternberg discusses modern genomics and the collapse of evolutionists junk DNA theory.
http://www.cross.tv/66770
Doubt Atheism & Question Darwinism
http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 min Denny CranesPlace 67,156
Any Word ! (Mar '11) 4 min Princess Hey 6,395
Let's play "follow the word" (Jun '08) 9 min Princess Hey 48,260
News Trump's bizarre claim that the Clinton email co... 10 min Rider on the Storm 999
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 27 min Mr_FX 61,050
Post any FOUR words (Feb '16) 28 min Mr_FX 2,380
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 30 min Mr_FX 5,796
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 44 min Bad Bex 10,580
All Christmas Carols/Songs and Quotes.. 51 min Truth 55
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Sublime1 206,953
More from around the web